Woman wins $1,800 wrongful eviction award despite not being named on the lease; Louisiana court says occupants still have legal protections

A woman in New Orleans was awarded $1,800 after a court upheld a wrongful eviction ruling, despite her not being the named tenant on the lease. Joddice Taylor was ordered to leave her home after the death of her long-time partner, Nelson Ragas, without being allowed to take her belongings. According to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which ruled on 19 May 2026, the property manager had failed to follow the required legal procedures before removing her. The court confirmed that occupants can receive eviction protections similar to tenants, even when they are not named on the lease.Woman wins $1,800 despite not being a tenantTaylor and Ragas had lived together for approximately 15 years and shared the apartment at Guste Homes in New Orleans for around three years. Ragas was the tenant under the lease, while Taylor had signed an addendum identifying herself as his live-in aide. The agreement stated that her right to remain in the apartment depended on Ragas continuing to employ her and that she would have to leave if he died or moved out of the subsidised housing programme.On 3 January 2022, Taylor delivered Ragas' rent cheque to Guste Homes Resident Management Corporation. Ragas died later that day. According to Taylor, she informed the property’s manager, Wilson, of his death on 5 January, though Wilson was already aware of it. He initially told her that she needed to vacate the apartment within three weeks. However, Taylor testified that Wilson met her at the apartment later that day, accompanied by another employee, and ordered her to leave immediately. She was not allowed to take her clothes, medication or other personal belongings with her.How did she win a wrongful eviction lawsuitFollowing her removal, Taylor hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit in First City Court of New Orleans on 13 January 2022. Her petition sought an injunction restoring her possession of the apartment, along with compensation for out-of-pocket expenses, inconvenience and mental anguish caused by her displacement. Under a consent agreement concerning a preliminary injunction, she was granted access to the apartment from 26 January until 16 February 2022.According to the judgment, Taylor did not remain in the apartment throughout that period. Instead, she used the time to inventory and retrieve her belongings and Ragas' possessions before leaving the premises. She placed Ragas' belongings in a storage unit, but, being unemployed, she could not maintain the payments. The storage operator eventually seized and sold the possessions. On 3 March 2025, the trial court ruled in Taylor's favour, finding that she had been wrongfully evicted and awarding her damages for mental anguish.Why did the court uphold a $1,800 wrongful eviction awardGuste Homes appealed the decision, arguing that federal law governing subsidised housing should have applied and that there was insufficient evidence to support the $1,800 award. The appeal also challenged the assessment of damages associated with conversion and mental anguish. The Fourth Circuit considered whether a property owner or manager could remove an occupant from a legally occupied property without prior notice or any court proceedings.The court acknowledged that Taylor was not a tenant under the lease but rejected the argument that this meant she could be removed without legal protection. The judgment stated: “However, under Louisiana law, occupants are afforded mandatory procedural protections similar to those of tenants.” It relied on Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 4702, which requires an owner seeking to evict an occupant after the purpose of the occupancy has ended to deliver written notice allowing five days to vacate. The court also explained that the notice is only the first step in the eviction process and does not eliminate the need for court proceedings.How did emotional distress affect her wrongful eviction caseIn considering the damages, the appeal court distinguished between Taylor's mental anguish and the loss of possessions stored after the eviction. The trial court had found that Guste's actions deprived her of access to her belongings when it locked her out of the apartment. However, the judgment did not compensate her for furniture, fixtures or other items subsequently lost because she could no longer afford the storage fees. The court agreed that those material losses could not be attributed to the wrongful eviction on the facts of the case.Instead, the damages reflected the emotional distress Taylor experienced after being removed from her home. The appeal court cited the trial court’s finding that she cried frequently, was under significant stress because she had nowhere to go, and could not sleep most nights. The appeal court agreed that the manner of her removal was shocking and humiliating and found no manifest error in the trial court's assessment of general damages.The court concluded that Guste had failed to comply with the applicable procedural requirements and affirmed the original judgment. Its decision stated: “The total absence of any judicial intervention in the process is the essence of a wrongful eviction.” The $1,800 award therefore remained in place following the appeal, with the court confirming that Taylor's status as an occupant rather than the named tenant did not justify removing her without the legally required procedures.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.